Today’s post comes from David Zipper, a Senior Fellow at the MIT Mobility Initiative known for his writing on transportation policy, technology, and urban planning.
I wrote something similar to this a long time ago (2017!). Small towns would be a nice middle ground. Small towns are full of poor people and older people who either can't afford cars or are nervous to use them under certain conditions (such as night time).
They also have unbelievably easy roads with far fewer variables. I think AVs will get there but if they went to some now it would help build good will
In particular, little college towns, for drunk college students.
Yea I think what I like most about this 'AVs in rural areas' idea is that while it may not be the best business case, it does do a lot of good for local residents. City dwellers have tons of great options to get around safely but as David points out, that's not the case in rural America, and they are paying for it (with their lives often).
So for AV companies that are serious about helping improve society, reducing road deaths, this would seem to fit that mandate. Maybe they don't care as much as they say though?
Robotaxi companies and supporters claim a lot of *potential* benefits. Which of those benefits become reality will depend on economics and incentives. A good place to start with critical thinking is to ask how well ride hail serves the proposed need, and why robotaxis will be different (or when they will be more than slightly cheaper). In rural areas too sparse to support robust ride hail, don't expect robotaxis to appear anytime soon.
Yes. An unfortunate tensions with robotaxis is that the places where they would provide the most societal value are very different from those that provide the most profit.
I’m a fan of David Zipper and his writing about traffic and vehicles. I don’t get the thinking on this, though - it reads like, “we couldn’t figure out how to get a taxi when we were 10 miles from the nearest town, so we need AVs in rural areas.”
If the local economy can barely support 1 full time taxi, where is the money to support AVs in rural areas going to come from? And why does it have to be AVs?
True, though if you are driving a $20k car making $40k/year, that is a lot less expensive than putting in waymos at ~$125k/each.
If the money is available to the rural area somehow, I would think a non-AV would be preferable, providing transportation and employment to a rural population.
The priority for any service should be providing the best service possible at the lowest price, not progressives side quests about goosing employment. That's part of why so much of transit can't get anything built in this country, because projects get riddled with extraneous objectives.
But fine let's take your math seriously. I don't know where you're going to find a $20K commercial grade vehicle, but I'll pretend.
An autonomous vehicle will provide 24-hour service. So factoring that in, you'll need three drivers (who — trust me — still won't be as reliable as the AV) to provide the same level of service. So now we're at $140,000 for *one year*.
Never mind the fact that what actually matters over time is *the marginal cost* per ride.
Is Waymo really that focused on profitability right now? They're likely losing tons of money, why not push a few out in rural America to provide some local good/benefit? The profitability argument also doesn't hold much water when you look to a future where the cost of an AV will be coming way down.
As I've written about, the Chinese company Apollo Go has gotten the cost of their latest RT6 vehicle down to $30k!
Hi, author here. It's also possible that rural robotaxis are shared, like microtransit, which could increase utilization and lower costs.
IMO shared AVs are unlikely to catch on in cities bc many people prefer a more expensive private ride or a cheaper transit trip (just look at pooled ridehail's struggles). But in rural areas, there are no such alternatives. So AV customers might be more willing to share a trip with strangers and go a bit out of their way -- thereby making AV services more viable.
Well said, shared rides do need high density to function well in terms of a high match rate, but if you fix an end point (say everyone is going to the local high school football game), that helps a bunch.
And definitely, when there are no other options, I think folks will share a ride instead of the alternatives :) (ie not going)
Add to the long list of deterrents to AV service in rural America the lack of charging, cleaning, and servicing infrastructure. Mr. Zipper's objective is far more laudable than the practical. For the meaningful future, AV service in rural areas will only happen if heavily subsidized by state and local authorities.
Since all transit is subsidized, including the personal car (you don't build your own roads), that's probably fine. AVs could make subsidies go further.
The main cost of most transportation is the driver.
I agree. I was merely suggesting that the burden for providing transportation service in rural communities is on government agencies, not on private AV producers. Sadly, rural residents are disproportionately older age citizens, who can't or shouldn't be driving themselves. So the provision of transportation services to vital services like doctors visits, grocery shopping and social activities is particularly important in public transportation deserts.
It would be lovely to see some of those cute autonomous trolleys running routes in rural America, and I expect they would find that that was a good use of public resources.
Charging is actually quite expensive in dense urban lots since you need very high value real estate close to demand, high capacity (L3 or higher) charging, etc. So I'd actually argue that charging could/should be a lot cheaper in rural areas. Throw up a bunch of solar panels, some batteries and call it a day :)
This is sort of why I'm skeptical of Waymo's safety argument and saving lives. If they really care about saving lives, sure Waymo will help with that over time, but they could also put their money where their mouth is and launch in rural areas for this reason. And/or support policies (they have enough policy / lobbyists lol) that will reduce deaths (speed governors, cameras, more bike lanes, etc. All of which have been proven to reduce road deaths today! Instead of way off in the future when every car is a Waymo :)
I wrote something similar to this a long time ago (2017!). Small towns would be a nice middle ground. Small towns are full of poor people and older people who either can't afford cars or are nervous to use them under certain conditions (such as night time).
They also have unbelievably easy roads with far fewer variables. I think AVs will get there but if they went to some now it would help build good will
In particular, little college towns, for drunk college students.
https://observer.com/2017/04/pittsburg-kansas-autonomous-vehicles-navya-olli-local-motors-navigant-easy-mile/
Yea I think what I like most about this 'AVs in rural areas' idea is that while it may not be the best business case, it does do a lot of good for local residents. City dwellers have tons of great options to get around safely but as David points out, that's not the case in rural America, and they are paying for it (with their lives often).
So for AV companies that are serious about helping improve society, reducing road deaths, this would seem to fit that mandate. Maybe they don't care as much as they say though?
Robotaxi companies and supporters claim a lot of *potential* benefits. Which of those benefits become reality will depend on economics and incentives. A good place to start with critical thinking is to ask how well ride hail serves the proposed need, and why robotaxis will be different (or when they will be more than slightly cheaper). In rural areas too sparse to support robust ride hail, don't expect robotaxis to appear anytime soon.
Yes. An unfortunate tensions with robotaxis is that the places where they would provide the most societal value are very different from those that provide the most profit.
I suppose if there are statewide regulations, it could be reasonable to ensure that 5-10% of a company's rides happen in more rural areas.
how would you measure social value?
Less dui’s, old people getting to doctors appointments, etc.
I recently wrote a blog post about how AVs should be integrated in the transport systems of rural areas: https://transportlc.org/posts/why-avs-need-a-different-approach-in-rural-areas
It goes into a bit more depth than David's excellent article, but agrees with his basic argument.
I’m a fan of David Zipper and his writing about traffic and vehicles. I don’t get the thinking on this, though - it reads like, “we couldn’t figure out how to get a taxi when we were 10 miles from the nearest town, so we need AVs in rural areas.”
If the local economy can barely support 1 full time taxi, where is the money to support AVs in rural areas going to come from? And why does it have to be AVs?
The main cost of a taxi is the driver.
True, though if you are driving a $20k car making $40k/year, that is a lot less expensive than putting in waymos at ~$125k/each.
If the money is available to the rural area somehow, I would think a non-AV would be preferable, providing transportation and employment to a rural population.
The priority for any service should be providing the best service possible at the lowest price, not progressives side quests about goosing employment. That's part of why so much of transit can't get anything built in this country, because projects get riddled with extraneous objectives.
But fine let's take your math seriously. I don't know where you're going to find a $20K commercial grade vehicle, but I'll pretend.
An autonomous vehicle will provide 24-hour service. So factoring that in, you'll need three drivers (who — trust me — still won't be as reliable as the AV) to provide the same level of service. So now we're at $140,000 for *one year*.
Never mind the fact that what actually matters over time is *the marginal cost* per ride.
And then it's not even close.
Is Waymo really that focused on profitability right now? They're likely losing tons of money, why not push a few out in rural America to provide some local good/benefit? The profitability argument also doesn't hold much water when you look to a future where the cost of an AV will be coming way down.
As I've written about, the Chinese company Apollo Go has gotten the cost of their latest RT6 vehicle down to $30k!
As long as the cost to expand the cellular coverage is included, then I agree with the math.
Hi, author here. It's also possible that rural robotaxis are shared, like microtransit, which could increase utilization and lower costs.
IMO shared AVs are unlikely to catch on in cities bc many people prefer a more expensive private ride or a cheaper transit trip (just look at pooled ridehail's struggles). But in rural areas, there are no such alternatives. So AV customers might be more willing to share a trip with strangers and go a bit out of their way -- thereby making AV services more viable.
Well said, shared rides do need high density to function well in terms of a high match rate, but if you fix an end point (say everyone is going to the local high school football game), that helps a bunch.
And definitely, when there are no other options, I think folks will share a ride instead of the alternatives :) (ie not going)
Starlink anyone? :)
Add to the long list of deterrents to AV service in rural America the lack of charging, cleaning, and servicing infrastructure. Mr. Zipper's objective is far more laudable than the practical. For the meaningful future, AV service in rural areas will only happen if heavily subsidized by state and local authorities.
I don't disagree, but note that urban AV service is also massively subsidized (by VCs and other investors).
Since all transit is subsidized, including the personal car (you don't build your own roads), that's probably fine. AVs could make subsidies go further.
The main cost of most transportation is the driver.
I agree. I was merely suggesting that the burden for providing transportation service in rural communities is on government agencies, not on private AV producers. Sadly, rural residents are disproportionately older age citizens, who can't or shouldn't be driving themselves. So the provision of transportation services to vital services like doctors visits, grocery shopping and social activities is particularly important in public transportation deserts.
It would be lovely to see some of those cute autonomous trolleys running routes in rural America, and I expect they would find that that was a good use of public resources.
Charging is actually quite expensive in dense urban lots since you need very high value real estate close to demand, high capacity (L3 or higher) charging, etc. So I'd actually argue that charging could/should be a lot cheaper in rural areas. Throw up a bunch of solar panels, some batteries and call it a day :)
This is sort of why I'm skeptical of Waymo's safety argument and saving lives. If they really care about saving lives, sure Waymo will help with that over time, but they could also put their money where their mouth is and launch in rural areas for this reason. And/or support policies (they have enough policy / lobbyists lol) that will reduce deaths (speed governors, cameras, more bike lanes, etc. All of which have been proven to reduce road deaths today! Instead of way off in the future when every car is a Waymo :)